698
DOC.
659 NOVEMBER
1918
space
(in
which
the
rigid body
would
then
have
to
be in
a
form
of
rest),
the
mentioned conditions
can
be realized.
If
this
is
not
satisfied,
I
do
not
see
how
the
“rigid body” ought
to
be defined
accordingly.-
Then
I
also have
another
question
on
my
mind with
regard
to
the
facts of
Weyl's
theory.[2]
Would it
not
be
possible
that,
instead
of
ƒ /Euvguvdxudxv,
the
“length” were given
by
an
expression
ƒ
/k
•
Euvguvdxudxv,
where
k means an
invariant function
of
x1, x2, x3,
x4
against
coordinate
transformations
expressible
by
guv
and
Qv,
which function
is
constant in
the
case
where
guv
=
6uv
and
which,
upon
introduction
of
Weyl’s
A-factor, changes
into const
.
A-1
.
k?
Then,
of
course,
all
length
relations would be invariants in
Weyl's sense,
and
we
would have
the
usual
length
measurement
for
Euclidean
metrics.[3]
Given,
for
inst.,
the
world
were
composed
in such
a
way
that
in it
a
point O
could be chosen
so
that the
geodesic
lines
starting
from
O
covered
the
world
com-
pletely
and
simply
(except
for
O
itself,
of
course),
then the
expression
e-
fpo
EvQvdxv
in which
the
integral
extends
over
the
geodesic
link between O and P,
would be
a
function
k
of
the
coordinates
of P, which has
the
required properties.[4]
Hilbert,
from whom
the
idea
of
the introduction
of
a k
factor
originates,
has
indicated the
equation
i/rE/'-i'
H
\
--
1
dn
k
dx.
=
0
to
determine
such
a
function[5] which,
interpreted
as a
differential equation for
the
k
to
be
determined,
is
invariant
against
coordinate
transformations
and,
in
addition,
remains
unchanged
if
guv
is
replaced by
A
•
guv,
Qv
by Qv+
1dA/Adxv,
and
k
by
A-1
•
k.
Perhaps through
invariant
constraints
a
solution
dependent
on
the
guv's
and
Qv's
could be chosen for
this
differential
equation
such
that
in
the
case
Qv
=
0
(v
=
1,
...,
4)
it
is
equal
to
the
constant
1
and,
upon
introduction
of
a
A-factor,
is
multiplied by
A-1.
I
would appreciate
hearing your opinion
on
these matters.-
Regarding
the
Nelson
topic,
I
thoroughly
understand
your
point
of
view.[6]
I
gladly
accept
the
prospect
of
discussing
it
with
you orally
when
the
occasion
presents
itself.-
Currently,
the
political
events
are
presumably
at
the
center
of
your
interest.
What
turn
destiny
will
take
“lies
in
the
lap
of
the
gods.”[7]
Most
cordial
regards,
yours,
Paul
Bernays.
Previous Page Next Page

Extracted Text (may have errors)


698
DOC.
659 NOVEMBER
1918
space
(in
which
the
rigid body
would
then
have
to
be in
a
form
of
rest),
the
mentioned conditions
can
be realized.
If
this
is
not
satisfied,
I
do
not
see
how
the
“rigid body” ought
to
be defined
accordingly.-
Then
I
also have
another
question
on
my
mind with
regard
to
the
facts of
Weyl's
theory.[2]
Would it
not
be
possible
that,
instead
of
ƒ /Euvguvdxudxv,
the
“length” were given
by
an
expression
ƒ
/k
•
Euvguvdxudxv,
where
k means an
invariant function
of
x1, x2, x3,
x4
against
coordinate
transformations
expressible
by
guv
and
Qv,
which function
is
constant in
the
case
where
guv
=
6uv
and
which,
upon
introduction
of
Weyl’s
A-factor, changes
into const
.
A-1
.
k?
Then,
of
course,
all
length
relations would be invariants in
Weyl's sense,
and
we
would have
the
usual
length
measurement
for
Euclidean
metrics.[3]
Given,
for
inst.,
the
world
were
composed
in such
a
way
that
in it
a
point O
could be chosen
so
that the
geodesic
lines
starting
from
O
covered
the
world
com-
pletely
and
simply
(except
for
O
itself,
of
course),
then the
expression
e-
fpo
EvQvdxv
in which
the
integral
extends
over
the
geodesic
link between O and P,
would be
a
function
k
of
the
coordinates
of P, which has
the
required properties.[4]
Hilbert,
from whom
the
idea
of
the introduction
of
a k
factor
originates,
has
indicated the
equation
i/rE/'-i'
H
\
--
1
dn
k
dx.
=
0
to
determine
such
a
function[5] which,
interpreted
as a
differential equation for
the
k
to
be
determined,
is
invariant
against
coordinate
transformations
and,
in
addition,
remains
unchanged
if
guv
is
replaced by
A
•
guv,
Qv
by Qv+
1dA/Adxv,
and
k
by
A-1
•
k.
Perhaps through
invariant
constraints
a
solution
dependent
on
the
guv's
and
Qv's
could be chosen for
this
differential
equation
such
that
in
the
case
Qv
=
0
(v
=
1,
...,
4)
it
is
equal
to
the
constant
1
and,
upon
introduction
of
a
A-factor,
is
multiplied by
A-1.
I
would appreciate
hearing your opinion
on
these matters.-
Regarding
the
Nelson
topic,
I
thoroughly
understand
your
point
of
view.[6]
I
gladly
accept
the
prospect
of
discussing
it
with
you orally
when
the
occasion
presents
itself.-
Currently,
the
political
events
are
presumably
at
the
center
of
your
interest.
What
turn
destiny
will
take
“lies
in
the
lap
of
the
gods.”[7]
Most
cordial
regards,
yours,
Paul
Bernays.

Help

loading